Directional interconnect cables

>Put the damn cable in the way it sounds best, to you, and enjoy the music..

I agree with you 100%

While the proffered definition of drift velocity is not incorrect, the net velocity of an individual electron, it is not of particular interest in sending an electrical signal through a wire. Interesting view of current "the the velocity of electrons requiered to move a few A of current inside a copper wire is only a few mm per second". While the net velocity of a single electron may not be a few mm per second, the meaninful aspect of current flow is not the drift velocity. Current is defined in terms of velocity or rate of charge flow, with an electron of a certain charge in coulombs. Current = dq/dt, with the current in amperes, q or charge in coulombs and time in seconds. The current flow, or the flow of charge carried via electrons, is what is important in a determing the effect of the electrical properties of the conductor on that flow, and finally on the signal that gets turned into sound. The drift velocity is not really applicable to that discussion and more than talking about the spin of the individual electron.

Musicnoise - scientists still cannot fully understand mechanics of the current flow and according to some current is carried by Photons (mathematically impossible) and according to others by free electrons (physically impossible - too slow) and even according to some carried outside of the conductor by electromagnetic wave. They are not certain how this wave is created - if by charge transfer then how?

The funny thing is that all this scientific discussions are not really necessary because you already explained it to us.

scientists still cannot fully understand mechanics of the (fill in the blank). True, but meaningless. Using scientific knowledge to do something or accurately predict an outcome requires judgment - selecting the principles that have a meaningful effect. For example, while it was shown that time is not a constant (as opposed to the speed of light) that result is of no consequence in building a bridge. Suggesting to a group of engineers engaged in the task of building a bridge that we should take into account the non-constant nature of time in the design would properly be met with incredulous looks and a recomendation to avoid sharp objects. What the "science doesn't fully understand ______" line is is a marketing tool, nothing more. The classic technique, well demonstrated here and for many years across many disciplines, is to take a scientific principle and misapply that principle to arrive at the desired conclusion. Drift velocity of an electron, copper oxide once used in semiconductor material, and "extruded diodes" are nothing more than such misapplication in this instance. Do some of the scientific principles expounded in marketing hype have meaning when properly applied ? Sure You had better take into account skin effect when working with RF. Silver as opposed to other metals is meaningful in some applications - I once build a preamplifier to deal with less than 10 microvolt changes with the signal of interest embedded in electrical activity several orders of magnitude greater than the signal. Had to use ceramic spacers and silver solder to take advantage of the low noise and high CMRR of the active device. So silver rather than some other metal was important in that application. Misapplication - silver wire vs copper to move around tens of millivolt and larger signals between cd players, preamps and amps, talking about skin effect with audio frequencies over 20 feet of wire, applying drift velocity to support an idea that cables are directional. No, man does not completely understand anything, but that philosophical fact is just not important in this application.

Musicnoise, could you please change your username to "breath of fresh air"; everytime one of these threads gets severely off track, I always look for a dash of common sense and a dose of scientific reality from you!